[Peace-discuss] The Alito danse

[Morton K. Brussel]

The following is a polemic against what has transpired in the  
confirmation hearings of Samuel Alito. Its harsh tone, expected from  
this quarter, strikingly contrasts with the decorum even of  the  
opposing Senators at the hearings.

It is from the web site of the Revolutionary Communist Party:
http://rwor.org/a/031/alito-hearings-fascist-jubilation.htm

An analysis to consider. --mkb

The Alito Hearings: Jubilation of the Fascists and Anger of the People
Revolution #031, January 22, 2006, posted at revcom.us
People expected last week’s Senate hearings on Supreme Court nominee  
Samuel Alito to be a major political clash. But the political battle  
people hoped for did not materialize. By week’s end, two things stood  
out.

One, Alito’s ascendancy to the Court would, as feared, mark a serious  
leap in the fascist remaking of the legal system.

And two, the political polarization in this country has to change,  
and change very quickly.

Why the Theocrats Cheered
The heavyweights turned out in force on the eve of the hearings, at  
"Justice Sunday III." Jerry Falwell, James Dobson and Tony Perkins-- 
as well as the third-ranking Republican senator, Rick Santorum--went  
to the church of Black preacher and sell-out Herbert Lusk. This  
unholy bunch insists that the law should be based on the tenets of an  
extremely reactionary variant of Christian fundamentalism. And these  
Christian fascists believe they’ve found a savior--or at least a  
tool--in Samuel Alito.

Listen to Falwell: "What we've worked on for 30 years, to mobilize  
people of faith and values in this country, is coming to consummation  
right now. . . Now we're looking at something that really started 30  
years ago, a reconstruction of a court system gone awry."

Then, on the first day of hearings, theocratic Republican senators  
Cornyn of Texas, Brownback of Kansas and Coburn of Oklahoma weighed  
in. They expressed their firm expectation that Alito would reverse  
the current Supreme Court on the separation of church and state, the  
right to abortion, and the right of gay people not to be jailed for  
consensual sexual activity.

Over the next several days, the cause for the jubilation and  
confidence of the Christian fascists would become clear.

Alito Sticks By His Reactionary Opinions
It’s not, as some said, that Alito dodged the questions or said  
nothing. More accurately, what he didn’t say said plenty. Alito  
refused to say that Roe vs Wade--the decision upholding a woman’s  
right to abortion--is "settled law." On the basis of this testimony  
many commentators summed up that, should he get on the Court, Alito  
will fight to overturn Roe.

Alito has a particularly ugly history on abortion. Writing in 1985 as  
a functionary in the Reagan Justice Department, Alito devised a  
strategy to undercut Roe by putting legal restrictions on abortion  
and getting the courts to uphold those, rather than tackling Roe head- 
on. Then, after Roe had been hollowed out, conditions would be better  
to overturn the decision altogether. And again, Alito did NOT disavow  
the memo on this during the hearings.

Promoted to the appeals court a few years later, Alito infamously  
fought to uphold the Pennsylvania law that would have forced married  
women who sought abortions to notify their husbands. (This opinion  
was directly opposed by the Supreme Court ruling on the case.) Kate  
Michelman, the former head of NARAL, gave powerful and moving  
testimony to the committee about what it meant for her, as a mother  
of three children, to be forced to ask the husband who had abandoned  
her for his permission to terminate her pregnancy. Now the man who  
would blithely force women to do this--and who would actually try to  
eliminate the right to abortion altogether--stands ready to join the  
highest court in the land. And this at a time when the Bush regime  
drives relentlessly to restrict and eventually outlaw abortion and to  
promote and strengthen patriarchal male domination generally.

Nor did Alito disavow at the hearing his earlier backing for the  
doctrine of "unitary executive"--a doctrine which invests  
extraordinary and, in some interpretations, supreme power in the  
presidency. He did not criticize his earlier arguments defending  
Nixon Attorney General John Mitchell for illegal wiretaps, which  
maintained that the members of the executive--"the President’s men"-- 
could not be prosecuted for civil damages. This too at a time when  
Bush openly violates the law on wiretapping and implies that his  
critics are guilty of treason.

Finally, Alito did not disavow his 1985 statement saying that he had  
taken up constitutional law specifically in opposition to earlier  
Supreme Court decisions, including those overturning some of the ways  
in which Black people had been denied the right to vote. (These  
decisions had been made as concessions to the civil rights movement  
and Black liberation struggle.) Alito now says he had been  
misinterpreted, or that he worded things poorly, and that "of course"  
he believes in "one person, one vote" in general--but he never  
disavowed his earlier statement on what drove him to take up  
constitutional law and he continues to balk when this principle is  
actually applied in practice. And again--this under a regime that  
systematically disfranchises Black voters and attempts to illegally  
cement Republican dominance.

Alito’s Racist Codewords
Almost equally important were Alito’s opening remarks, especially his  
attacks on the antiwar students where he went to college, at  
Princeton. He characterized them as "very privileged people behaving  
irresponsibly" and drew "a contrast between some of the worst of what  
I saw on the campus and the good sense and the decency of the people  
back in my own community."

Two points. First, those students were fighting for justice, often  
braving attacks from police and National Guard. They were principled  
and courageous, not irresponsible--and we need more of this today.  
Second, and perhaps more important, Alito adopted here the rhetoric  
and imagery of the so-called "hard-hat" movement of the time. These  
were people, mostly from the better-paid sections of the working  
class, small businessmen, and the police, who joined together in  
violent attacks not only against antiwar demonstrators, but even more  
so against Black people attempting to integrate housing and schools.

Some commentators covered that up, while making a big deal of how  
Alito represented the "hard-working and responsible white ethnics."  
In fact, Alito represents a fascist section of the ruling class, and  
has devoted his life to that. But in his hearing appearance he tried  
to appeal to and mobilize the narrow and backward section of "white  
ethnics" who went along with the racism and reaction and still do, as  
opposed to the significant section that broke with it then and are  
dissatisfied and angry with the fascist direction of politics now.

(A further irony in this remark is that Alito himself joined a group  
that was indeed over-privileged and irresponsible--the Concerned  
Alumni of Princeton. This bunch defended their privilege by attacking  
affirmative action for Black people and the very presence of women  
and gay people on campus! Alito was proud enough of his membership to  
list it on his job application in 1985--and then claimed at the  
hearings to have no memory of the group’s specific positions!)

Democrats Make a Show, But Ease Alito’s Way
But while the hard right fascists strutted and brayed, the Democratic  
opposition fumbled and bumbled. Everybody had figurd on a showdown.  
But where was the Democratic senator who gave any sense of that?

Put it this way. If you saw a boxer come into the ring for a very  
important fight, one that could mean a shot at the championship, and  
you noticed that he or she was out of shape in the first place, and  
then only threw a few lackluster jabs . . . and if you saw the  
fighter refuse to go in for the kill when some of those jabs somehow  
landed . . . and if at the end the boxer seemed almost relieved when  
the ref called a TKO and ruled her or him out of the running for the  
championship--well, you’d figure that either that fighter had not  
believed that they had the stuff to be champ in the first place, or  
else they had thrown the fight. Or both.

And that pretty much describes the Democrats. Where was the Democrat  
who said, "Hey, look, answer the question straight, or I’m  
filibustering!" Where was the Democrat who said, "Can’t remember the  
positions of that racist sexist organization, my ass! You put it down  
on your job application in 1985. Now tell the truth, and remember  
you’re under oath." More than that: where was the Democrat who  
clearly called out the stakes--that Alito’s elevation to the court  
would amount to a major step toward fascism, and nothing less, and  
that it had to be opposed with extraordinary measures?

Nowhere.

This doesn’t come from stupidity or weakness or lack of  
sophistication, as some commentators speculated. It comes from the  
top Democrats’ position in the current power structure, and how they  
see their role and their options in regard to that. In some  
significant respects, they do not like the Bushian moves toward all- 
out theocratic fascism. But this opposition is, at best, partial: the  
top Democrats still oppose withdrawal from Iraq, still support the  
Patriot Act, and increasingly adopt or concede to the Christian  
fascist terms on abortion, the separation of church and state, and  
other key issues.

Even to the extent they may oppose the Bush program, the Democratic  
leaders fear even more that the masses will come into the streets  
against it. Those who wish to write or lobby their Congressmen could  
save themselves the trouble, as these "representatives" are well  
aware of how angry people are. They simply do not want to do anything  
that might risk politically uncorking that anger, lest those whom  
they consider "their base" might go into the streets--and out of  
their control. So they say and do just enough to look as if they’re  
trying. . . while they play for time and string people along.

Be they Democrat or Republican, the loyalty of those at the top of  
the "pyramid of power" lies, above all, to the preservation of  
imperialism. They may have different views on how to do that and  
different roles to play in doing it, but do it they will. And the  
Alito hearings show it.

The Anger Must Be Mobilized
Meanwhile, millions were infuriated by these hearings. The  
accompanying article "Monday, Bloody Monday" and the photo and  
caption on the Grand Lakes Theater benefit in California give a sense  
of that. So do the e-mails we’ve received from new readers expressing  
tremendous anguish over the direction of society and urgently asking  
what to do.

Like we said, the anger is there. The question is whether it can find  
effective organized political expression. And the answer is "yes, if."

Yes, if people refuse to be confined by what the top Democrats will  
do or call for. Yes, if people will join in with and strengthen the  
initiatives being taken that actually call out the gravity of the  
situation and mobilize people to act against it. Yes, if people take  
to heart the understanding that the Bush regime faces serious  
problems and there is a huge potential because of that to  
dramatically change the equation by standing up and stepping out. And  
yes, if people also grasp that by doing nothing we guarantee that  
Bush will weather these problems and that the fascist future people  
fear will come to its ugly fruition.

All that means that there is work to do by those who do understand  
just what is up.

It is not enough to seethe, and it is definitely not enough to just  
hope that the Democrats will take action, or even to pressure them.  
Even if you believe in the Democrats, you have to recognize that they  
will never do anything at all unless and until they fear that you,  
and people like you, are "getting out of hand." What do the Alito  
hearings show, if not that?

Above all, people must break out of the confines set and enforced by  
those on top. Right now this pivots around mobilizing others, and  
committing yourself, to the mass political actions called on the  
occasion of Bush’s State of the Union address--actions demanding that  
Bush step down and take his program with him. The more that people  
take this up, now, the more that every force in society can be  
compelled to move, and the more we can change the whole dynamic and  
direction of things.

As for the Alito nomination, it is not over. There is disappointment,  
but there is also anger. Demonstrations, public meetings, and other  
anti-Alito activities during the next week should be supported and  
strengthened in their own right, and should also help feed into  
making the actions set for the State of the Union as powerful and  
massive as possible.

As we have said, this January is a crucial juncture. Every day must  
count, and count for a lot. The anger that exists so broadly, the  
anger that is building with each day, must be given massive and  
powerful political expression.

Now.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/private/peace-discuss/attachments/20060118/d3588442/attachment.html